Regardless, I've found an article about ME, this is amazing. Double the amazing, it's about me and it's short. Mercy of mercies, I'm sure.
The Conflation of Asexual and Sexless
"One of the more interesting but less notorious stereotypes/misconceptions about asexuality is that of the conflation of being asexual, in not experiencing sexual attraction, and being sexless or somehow neuter. I’ve never encountered this directly, but I have seen others note it, particularly one user on AVEN who identifies as a (cis)woman and is (rightfully) frustrated when people assume that she must identity as somehow agender or neutrois upon hearing that she is asexual, as if lacking sexual attraction makes having a gender identity redundant or superfluous."
Okay I dont know how to analyze this properly without it just being a really personal diary entry, because this is me. As part of my school's GSA, GLAM (which stood for Gay, Lesbian, And More), every spring we taught a class for sixth graders on the basic terms surrounding LGBTQ issues. We brought them hand outs and information and links and generally all the things we could find that a sixth grader questioning their sexuality or gender could want but not want to ask about. Part of our presentation, in the name of the unabashed honesty GLAM promotes, was telling the class about our own sexuality or gender expression.
Personally, I usually classify myself as bisexual. I dont classify myself as pansexual because gender does actually play a big role in my attraction to others (many pansexuals claim to be gender-blind or otherwise disregarding of gender and, while I'm not entirely sure that's the true heart of pansexuality, I'd rather just stick with bisexuality and not muddy waters already stagnant and oxygen deprived from over expansion of the terms), even if I find attraction in any gender, and the term has never really spoken to me.
Yes. I did just shamelessly indulge in that massive run-on.
Still, I've always wanted to call myself asexual but haven't for exactly the reasons outlined in the article. When I say asexual, people automatically assume that means I have no attraction to anything. Quite the contrary, I have quite a lot of attraction to people in a way that has nothing to do with sexual contact (in my paper, I wrote that 'bodies are temples to be worshiped uninhabited', to which Professor Buckmire asked 'but dont bodies have souls in them?'. To me, that is rather important. Physical bodies and spiritual minds are two different things, and I appreciate them in two very different ways). While agoraphobia and misanthropy definitely play a role in my sexuality, asexuality is definitely a separate concept. I find myself associating with all three.
Upon rereading this article, I've realized it might actually have nothing at all to do with what I've been blathering about for this whole article. Still, on it's own it has some interesting points. Read it anyways, maybe don't bother thinking of it while you read this blog (or the other way around).
I can't actually focus on the screen anymore, I think this is a bad sign.
Maeve's sleep deprived diary entry out.
So is the overlying argument that one cannot have a "normal" gender identity if one does not experience "normal" sexual attractions and/or tendencies? Because if that is the theory being argued against, a lot of the "Gender Box" ideas that we've talked about in class would develop an entirely new meaning. It could more readily explain people's inability to view people with different gender identities or sexual orientations as truly being part of their sex. It does not excuse it by any means, but it is an interesting revelation and addition to the argument, I think.
ReplyDelete